The first part of this three-part series explained what the causes of the Syrian Refugee Crisis are and where the crisis stands now. The second portion of this series will explore the process a Syrian refugee must go through to receive asylum in the United States. This is important information for all of us to know because of the confusion, lack of information, and fear associated with allowing refugees from this war-torn area into our countries. The intent of this article is to give a clear and unbiased overview of what a Syrian refugee must go through to receive asylum in the United States. This information could also be informative when discussing how, if, and why we should welcome refugees into our communities.

How do they apply?

All refugees apply for asylum through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR is an international organization under the United Nations that protects and assists refugees. Under UNHCR guidelines, an applicant may qualify for resettlement in another country if: (1) a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion can be demonstrated; (2) the applicant is outside of his or her country of nationality; and (3) the applicant is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. If such a person does qualify for asylum under the UNHCR’s standards, then that person will be referred to a third country for resettlement.

If that third country is the United States, the refugee must apply with the federal Resettlement Support Center and go through a rigorous 18-24 month screening process. During the rigorous screening process, officials investigate refugees to ensure the refugee’s story is legitimate and that the refugee will not pose a threat to the health or safety of the United States. The screening involves the participation of the U.S. State Department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Defense Department, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the FBI. These agencies double-check the refugee’s personal biographical statement and use biometric information to ensure the person’s story and identity are legitimate. Moreover, these agencies check for connections to known bad actors, outstanding warrants, and other information related to whether the person is a potential security risk. Refugees are also interviewed by DHS agents and medically tested for communicable diseases. In sum, seeking asylum is the most difficult and stringent way for a person to enter the United States.

What is different about the process for Syrian refugees?

For Syrian refugees the process goes one step further by requiring them to go through the Syrian Enhanced Review process where the refugee applicant’s file is further scrutinized for accuracy and veracity. The U.S. government added this extra step especially for Syrian refugees “due to the circumstances in Syria.” These circumstances obviously include the war, but also the fact that ISIS operatives are fighting in Syria. As many have observed, the biggest fear in allowing Syrian refugees into the country is the fear that an ISIS operative might pose as a refugee and sneak through the system and commit an act of terrorism in the United States. To prevent that possibility, the U.S. government created the Syrian Enhanced Review. Today, Syrian refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States. If there is any doubt about the veracity of an applicant’s story, the applicant will not be admitted.

What next?

For the first several years of the Syrian Civil War the United States accepted a very small number of refugees. Up until last year, the United States received approximately 2,200 Syrian refugees while over 1 million fled to Lebanon. Last year, President Obama promised to increase the number of refugees to 10,000 by the end of the fiscal year (September 2016). That goal was reached in August 2016.

The United States is in a difficult situation. In a post 9/11 society, where fears of domestic and international terrorism abound, we must weigh the concern for safety with our duty to welcome and care for refugees. Indeed, welcoming refugees is a large part of the legacy of the United States. Given the dire circumstances and the difficulty in passing the test compared to the likelihood of a terrorist sneaking through, one must wonder if the screening process is too stringent? The high standards do screen out threats to public safety while nearly guaranteeing that any Syrian refugee that makes its way to the United States is not a threat. When Syrian refugees do pass the high standards set before them, what happens to them next and how can we be a part of it? That question will be answered in the next and final post, addressing what a refugee goes through when he or she finally makes it to the United States and what we, especially those of us in Colorado, can do to help.

David Coats is a staff editor on the Denver Journal of International Law & Policy.

In early March, four Syrian men filed a lawsuit against Japan’s Ministry of Justice, challenging the rejection of their refugee applications. The group arrived in Japan in 2012 and applied for refugee status, citing the potential for persecution for their participation in pro-democracy protests against the Syrian government. The Ministry rejected their refugee status in early 2013, and instead granted them each a temporary residence permit under a “humanitarian perspective.” This type of permit allows the men to work full time and to participate in the national health care and other social programs. But while this seems like a compromise, the permits must be renewed every year, unlike refugee certificates which are permanent; and permit holders are excluded from certain assistance programs such as language training and employment help that the government grants to certified refugees. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage the lack of refugee status prevents for the Syrians is the difficulty, or near impossibility, it is to get their families into the country. Their lawsuit seeks to obtain official refugee status and the full rights and protections that it provides.

Japan’s Immigration and Refugee Recognition Act explicitly refers to the 1951 Convention in its definition of “refugee” as well as in the reasons a temporary refuge may be granted at the border. Further, the Ministry of Justice itself uses the Convention’s definition of a refugee in its guidelines for refugee status. The Convention defines a refugee as a person who has a “well-founded fear” of persecution. In practice, the Ministry tends to grant refugee status to those who are in danger of being “personally targeted” by their home government which, according to the lawsuit, is a higher standard than what the Convention requires.

The Convention’s language of having a “well-founded fear” is too vague on its face to offer any sort of guidance, and the term has no further definition anywhere in the Convention. Instead, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), provides a handbook to “guide government officials, judges, practitioners, as well as UNHCR staff applying the refugee definition.” In this handbook, the UNHCR considers the term “well-rounded fear” to have both a subjective and objective element. Subjective in the person’s motivation for seeking the refugee status; and objective in viewing that motivation within the context of their country of origin or what brought about the motivation in the first place. When considering whether there is a “well-founded fear”, the UNHCR places most of the weight on the subjective element while the objective element provides a context to assess the credibility of the refugee.

With this framework in mind, will the Syrian refugees’ case against the Ministry be successful? The answer, naturally, depends most notably on the Ministry’s use of “personally persecuted” when determining refugee status. Assuming that the terms “personally persecuted” mean that the person is being targeted by their home government and will be arrested the moment they step off the plane, it would seem that the Ministry puts more weight on the objective element of having a “well-rounded fear” instead of the subjective element as the UNHCR states. Indeed, if a requirement for refugee status is to be a target, then this would effectively do away with the term “well-founded fear of persecution” and replace it with “actual persecution.” Supporting this interpretation are further explanations in the UNHCR handbook. A refugee’s fear of persecution, according to the handbook, need not be based on their own personal experiences or the fact that they have previously been persecuted. The fear could be based on persecution of people in a similar situation, or persecution of friends or family. The UNHCR further considers that “fear” applies both to those who have actually been persecuted and those who wish to avoid being persecuted. The Ministry’s standard of “personally persecuted” could be found to be incompatible with 1951 Convention and the standards of the UNHCR.

Japan has been a party to the 1951 Convention since 1981 and has given no reservations or declarations to any provision. As such, the Ministry of Justice should be bound by the provisions in the Convention and it is likely that it has applied a higher standard than is necessary. If the lawsuit is successful, it will provide hope for the hundreds of refugee seekers who have been denied the status due to Japan’s rigid and restrictive system.

Leonard Large is a 3L at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and is Candidacy Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

As fighting intensifies and peace talks remain on rocky ground, the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine increases with each day that passes. One aspect of the crisis in Ukraine is the massive surge in numbers of internally displaced people. Reports of nearly 600,000 asylum seekers fleeing Ukraine, do not include the nearly one million internally displaced people still within Ukraine’s borders. Thus far, Ukraine and the international community have struggled to adequately respond to the needs of the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people (IDPs) forced from their homes during this violent conflict.

UNHCR, UNICEF, and OCHA are just a few of the non-governmental actors attempting to address the humanitarian crisis. According to its latest operational update, UNHCR has focused on the registration of IDPs, ensuring access to employment, and providing emergency shelter and non-food items, amongst many other efforts. UNICEF has focused on the health, nutrition, and education of the internally displaced children in Ukraine, while also emphasizing the need for monetary donations to continue its emergency relief. OCHA, the UN agency that coordinates the humanitarian responses to crises around the world, also emphasized the lack of funding and the need for emergency shelter and food security, amongst the many needs that must be met in Ukraine.

While UN Agencies struggle to keep up with the needs of IDPs, State actors are struggling to respond to the situation. While a French-German proposal for a cease-fire has been reached but remains ineffective in some areas, the response from the rest of the European Union also appears to be focused on diplomacy. In a recent speech to the European Parliament, the EU High Representative/Vice President, Federica Mogherini, emphasized, “that there is no alternative solution to a diplomatic solution for this crisis.” Meanwhile, United States officials have continued to debate whether or not to send arms to Ukraine.

While State actors attempt to determine the best course of action, Ukraine has adopted legislation concerning IDPs and the people of Ukraine are reportedly acting very generously toward IDPs. However, the question remains: how effectively can the Ukrainian government enforce its legislation and uphold their end of the ceasefire, and how long will Ukrainian generosity last, as more and more people are displaced every day?

One answer to these issues is funding. Simply put, the agencies attempting to address the problems facing IDPs need the money to continue to do so. UNICEF has already spent the US$10 million dollars that have been pledged, and still lacks about $20 million in committed funds. UNHCR has reported that it needs US$41 million dollars for the situation in Ukraine, and has only received two percent of those funds. Thus far, the funds received have been from only the European Union.

While it is the primary duty of the national authorities to provide assistance to IDPs, the international community can still play its part in assisting the national authorities of Ukraine. Agencies like UNHCR and UNICEF, along with many other partners, are poised to help the IDPs of Ukraine; they simply need the funding to adequately do so. It is time for the international community to step up and provide the monetary assistance necessary to provide for and protect the IDPs of Ukraine.

Julie Marling is a 2L law student at University of Denver Sturm College of Law and a Staff Editor for the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.

The Ved Nanda Center, the Western Union Foundation and the USA for UNHCR cordially invite you to a reception honoring the United Nations Refugee Agency. The Reception will take place in the University of Denver Sturm College of Law Forum from 5:30 to 7:30pm and will feature special guests Mr. Buti Kale, Deputy Regional Representative for UNHC and Mr. Hikmet Ersek, President and CEO of Western Union. Please RSVP by Monday August 22nd to Karlyn K. Shorb, Administrative Director of the Ved nanda Center for International and Comparative Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law: Phone: 303-871-6655; email: kshorb@law.du.edu.